Text Size:   A+ A- A   •   Text Only
Find     
Site Image

Meetings
Date, Location and Attendees
MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, December 3, 2002
Portland State University, Cramer Hall, Room 68
Portland, Oregon
 
Members Present:
Charles Hester, CPA, Public Member
David Michael, RG, CEG
William Orr, RG, Board Chairperson
Gary Peterson, RG, CEG
Eileen Webb, RG
John Beaulieu, RG, CEG, State Geologist
 
Guests Present:
Robin Johnson, PSU Graduate Student
Dorian Kuper, RG, CEG
Mark Reed
Karen Reed
 
Staff Present:
Susanna Knight, Administrator

Chair Announcement
At approximately 11:45 AM, during the morning Work Session of the Board, Chairman William Orr made the following announcement: per ORS 192.660 (1) (f), the Board will move into Executive Session to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. The Board returned to regular session at 1:00 PM. No motions resulted from the Executive Session.

I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Orr at 1:25 PM. Peterson requested an agenda addition under Old Business: a report on his trip to Biloxi for the National Association of State Boards of Geology (ASBOG) meeting. Hester moved to approve the agenda with this one addition. Webb seconded. Passed.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The following two corrections were made to the Minutes of the September 11, 2002 meeting: change meeting date from December 9 to December 3; correct spelling of Hester under VIII, C. Hester moved to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded and passed. The Minutes of the November 22, 2002 Special Board Meeting were approved as presented.

III. ANNOUNCEMENTS
  1. The next Board Meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 10, 2002. Michael recommended that we consider a retreat beginning on Sunday afternoon, March 9. Knight was directed to locate accommodations for such a retreat.
  2. Discuss Board Meeting Dates for 2003: The following dates were accepted as meeting dates for 2003: June 9, September 8 and December 8.

IV. REPORTS
  1. Office Report
    1. AR2002-04: Knight presented a SUMMARY OF STAFF Activities since September 11, 2002. Knight also updated the Board on the status of the building project. Peterson and Webb shared their concerns regarding the ESA report on the building site that they had reviewed. The response from the ESA report writer regarding those issues the Board raised seemed complacent. Peterson and Webb were concerned about how this attitude might reflect on the whole project. Knight will communicate these concerns to the developer.
    2. Follow-up on November 22, 2002 Meeting: Knight announced that she had just been contacted regarding her failure to include information in the Public Meeting Notice for the November 22, 2002, stating that the Board would have a public session. Knight requested that the Board reenter into today’s minutes the motions from the November 22, 2002, Special Board Meeting.
      1. Michael moved that the complaints against Mark Reed be dismissed based on the Public Testimony Rule in place at the time his report was prepared. Webb seconded the motion.
        Oral vote: Michael, yes; Orr, yes; Peterson, yes; Webb, yes.
      2. Michael moved to rescind OAR 809-050-0030, Registration Requirement for Public Testimony. Peterson seconded.
        Oral vote: Michael, yes; Orr, yes; Peterson, yes; Webb, yes.
    3. Budget Status for 2001-2003: Knight distributed the Revenue/Expense statement for year one of the biennium. She indicated that the budget versus expense from July 2002 to present were not yet available but would be ready in March. In addition, the draft budget for the 2003-2005 biennium would be ready for review.
  2. Committee Reports
    1. CEG Exam: Peterson reported that the review of the new CEG exam was held November 20, 2002, and was successful. Present were Peterson, Knight and Ken Neal, CEG, member of the Washington Board. Michael was ill. Peterson stated that two questions were adjusted in the examination evaluation process. Peterson indicated that the next step is to identify the weak areas in the question bank and develop additional questions. Also, the “to be reviewed” questions must have the required follow-up. A letter will go out about January 27 soliciting additional questions for those areas of the examination that need more questions. An additional question development workshop will be set up with the state of Washington. Knight was instructed to investigate the cost of H-Z Assessment’s assistance in the development of additional questions.
    2. OR Specific Exam: Orr reported that of the 9 candidates sitting for the October 4, 2002, Oregon Geology examination, five had passed. In addition, he reported that Webb had joined him in proctoring the ASBOG fundamental examination held on the same day. He also stated that the Oregon Geology Examination would be administered Friday, December 6, 2002, with five candidates scheduled.
    3. Outreach Committee: Orr reported that on November 4, 2002, he met with a GeoScience class at Oregon State University to share information about registration. Following the class presentation and discussion, he met with university professors who indicated their perception that the Board did not want professors registered. They questioned why one should be registered. Orr stated: “It’s the law!” The professors are interested in developing a process to become registered. Orr suggested a round table with professors to discuss this with the Board. Board members agreed that the more outreach to unregistered-trained geologists, the better. Hester moved to establish an ad hoc committee of two to review and evaluate the current requirement for college professors to become registered. Michael seconded. The following amendment was presented: The charge of the ad hoc committee is to seriously consider requirements and initiate an education process for the professors. Motion passed. Webb and Orr agreed to serve as the committee members with the intent to include the professors in the evaluation process.
    4. Rules & Regulations Committee: Webb reported that OAR 809-050-0030, the rule on Public Testimony, was rescinded on December 2, 2002, as a Temporary Rule. Beaulieu pointed out that if there is anything in the current rule that we want to preserve, we must be mindful of this. Knight will prepare the paperwork for the permanent rule change which must be completed by May 31, 2002.
    5. Professional Practice Committee: Michael stated that there is nothing to report on the White Paper. Peterson expressed his concern about the “white paper” approach. Michael sated that policy must be developed first, then the Rules can be adjusted accordingly. A discussion was held regarding how policy is to be used. Members agreed that when the draft is complete, the AG’s office should review it. Kuper inquired as to plans for updating the CEG Guidelines. Michael indicated that this had been on the back burner due to the CEG exam development with the state of Washington.
    6. Compliance Committee: Hester reported that at the beginning of the biennium, 12 cases were outstanding. An additional 22 have been added, but 15 cases have been closed leaving a balance of 19 cases outstanding. Four cases have been referred to the Joint Committee with the Engineering Board.
    7. Legislative Issues: Beaulieu reminded the Board that during the last session, SB447 was a bill presented to allow geologists to do geology. Although the bill died, the fall out was the MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between the Geology and Engineering Boards. Beaulieu recommended that the Board stays out of any PE/RG controversy and refers any complaint cases to the Joint Committee created by the MOU. He reminded the Board that we also have the AG letter related to this issue. Also Beaulieu stated that during the 1999 session, Senate Bill 12 created procedures to deal with Debris Flow. He anticipates there will be change during the 2003 session. The Board may want to state which type of professional should be hired for Debris Flow conditions. Beaulieu also reminded the Board that we have one bill, which will tighten the statute to require a degree in geology, or a related science, that includes a minimum of 45 quarter hours, 36 of which must be upper division.

V. CORRESPONDENCE
AC 02 10 364: The Board received a letter from Peter Sorenson, Lane County Commissioner, expressing concern about a compliance case before the Board. Orr stated that staff would acknowledge receipt of the letter by the Board.

VI. OLD BUSINESS
Report on National ASBOG Meeting: Peterson acknowledged the presence at the Board meeting of the President of ASBOG, Dorian Kuper, former Oregon Board Member. He congratulated her on behalf of the Board on her new position. Peterson went on to share that he had served as the Board’s delegate to the ASBOG National Meeting in Biloxi, Mississippi, from November 5 to 10, 2002. He indicated that the COE had been a challenging and interesting two days. In particular, he shared with the Board the court challenge to the ASBOG examination. A Florida candidate challenged the Spring 2002 examination. Seventeen questions were challenged. As part of defending any examination, proof must be provided that not only is the correct answer correct, but proof must be provided as to why the three distracters (incorrect answers) are indeed incorrect. Both an expert witness and one of the Board’s psychometricians, were present. ASBOG’s expert witness has been involved with the examination since its inception. After the Judge heard the process for compiling and scoring one examination and heard the defense for the correct answer on one question, the case was dismissed. ASBOG considers the failure of this challenge to be a landmark case, as it validated that the COE is preparing a very defensible examination. The state of Florida paid approximately $22,000.00 to defend the examination. Peterson also shared that both the Mississippi hospitality and food had been wonderful.

VII. ITEMS FOR BOARD ACTION
  1. Compliance Matters
    1. Case #00-11-013: The respondent stated that he had no involvement with the project. Orr moved to close the case by notifying the complainant that they must reject reports that are not acceptable and to issue a LETTER OF REPRIMAND to the respondent. Hester seconded. No opposition. Motion passed.
    2. Case #01-08-008: Hester moved to issue an AGREEMENT with the respondent directing the respondent to refrain from the public practice of geology in Oregon. Peterson seconded. No opposition. Motion passed.
    3. Case #01-08-009: Hester moved to issue an AGREEMENT with the respondent directing him to refrain from practicing hydrogeology in the future. Peterson seconded. No opposition. Motion passed.
    4. Case #01-08-010: Hester moved to issue an AGREEMENT with the respondent directing the respondent to refrain from the public practice of geology in Oregon. Webb seconded. No opposition. Motion passed.
    5. Case #01-09-013, Case # 01-12-019, Case #02-06-007: Michael moved to issue a NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUSPEND RG LICENSE until respondent takes and passes the CEG examination. Hester seconded. Peterson attached an amendment to include a $1000 fine for each of two violations. Additional discussion was held. No opposition. Motion passed.
    6. Case #01-12-018: Webb moved that respondent be invited in to discuss allegation with the Compliance Committee and that a draft NOTICE OF INTENT be prepared for possible presentation to the respondent. Hester seconded. No opposition. Motion passed.
    7. Case #02-05-003: The respondent has not signed and returned an AGREEMENT due back by November 29, 2002. Hester moved to issue a NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE CIVIL PENALTY if no response is received within the next 10 calendar days. Webb seconded. No opposition. Motion passed.
    8. Case #02-06-005: Webb moved to take no formal action as the realm of publications is out of the Board’s jurisdiction. Michael seconded. No opposition. Motion passed.
    9. Case #02-06-006: Michael reported that the definition of a CEG is specific as it applies to civil engineering work. But hydrogeology, when that is all you do, is not within the definition of a CEG. An RG, doing hydrogeology work within a civil engineering work project, must be very cautious about doing that work. Michael moved to issue a LETTER OF CONCERN to the respondent, stating that.the RG must be sure of work limitations before bidding, and a LETTER OF CONCERN to the contractor stating the Board’s concerns in the bidding process that might include hiring borderline qualified professionals. Hester seconded. Peterson abstained from voting. Motion passed. [ This motion was rescinded at the March 20, 2003 meeting. Refer to minutes from that meeting.
  1. Approve Check Log: Hester moved to approve the Check log from #1714 to #1741. Webb seconded. Motion passed. Hester suggested putting together a committee for budget development. Orr will act on this suggestion.
  2. Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson: Webb nominated a slate of David Michael, Chairperson and Gary Peterson, Vice-Chairperson. Hester seconded. The candidates were approved by a unanimous vote.

VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT
  1. William Orr, RG, outgoing Chairman of the Board offered words of advice to the incoming Chairman David Michael following the telling of a chicken story: “Be dominant!”
  2. Dorian Kuper read in the newspaper about the decision with respect to a recent case involving a university professor. She has fielded many calls from registrants who are in a flurry because no one knows what happened. Kuper would appreciate a comment from the Board as to the Public Testimony process. County Commissioners have no idea as to which individuals are the experts in a Public Land Use Hearing process. Registrants need assistance in this regard. David Michael shared that the Board must step back and get the big picture on the public process. This will be shared when the Board has prepared their statement.
  3. Mark Reed, guest, stated that he has “been on a steep learning curve from a this process.” He indicated his willingness to share in the process of the follow up. Peterson stated that the quasi-government/judicial process is a venue in which the body may accept or reject whatever they choose. Registration has no influence on these folks. Kuper recommended that the Board continue to communicate with counties and cities as outreach about the need to use the proper professional.
  Orr adjourned the meeting 4:30 PM.  
Respectfully submitted,
 
Susanna Knight
Administrator
 
(Minutes were approved at the March 10, 2003, Board Meeting)